|Home||American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections|
|Anonymous User (login or join us)||
The Rothschild family has ruled the world for a very long time. Of course, the Rothschilds didn’t just come out of nowhere. Their activities would have not been possible in a World in which there was not a long history of financial domination. Some have traced this history of what I’ll call mercantile parasitism to old Venetian financial networks (incidentally, the Warburg banking family, influential in our time, descended from the Venetian del Banco family). Some, like R. Buckminister Fuller, have traced this system back to ancient Phoenecian predecessors to these merchant bankers. It has probably been around for as long as “civilization”, as we presently call it, has existed. This empire of mercantile parasitism spread from Venice and elsewhere outward through Europe, and further refined banking practices in Amsterdam. Things really took off with the “Glorious” revolution, financed by Amsterdam bankers like Manasseh ben Israel (http://tinyurl.com/8x23cro), and the establishment of the bank of England, also put forth by Amsterdam bankers (http://tinyurl.com/7xjj8l2). The Encyclopedia Americana stated the following about the Bank of England:
“Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control … its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state … The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors …” (http://tinyurl.com/7axfblc)
In 1960 the Radcliffe Committee examined the functions of the Bank of England. Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence (from the committee investigation), stated (p. 9. 4.: http://tinyurl.com/6mefpag) – “Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in place of cash it is possible for banks to create the equivalent of cash [i.e. - credit]. Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customers account; or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case an increase in it’s deposits will occur.”
The Report of the Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking, and Credit Systems, published in 1956, stated (http://tinyurl.com/7vtaevz)
“The process called “creation of credit” or “creation of money” is no new development. Its origin in England in the seventeenth century as a development of the activities of the goldsmiths is described in the following passage from The Theory of Credit by Macleod (first published in 1891), Vol. II, Part II, at page 520.”
(That text just describes the history of fractional reserve banking, and is available here for the interested reader: http://tinyurl.com/7q2po4k)
The New Zealand report also noted that following about this system that developed from fractional reserve banking in England:
“The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses who appeared before us.” (http://tinyurl.com/7sfonbx)
This created a formidable foundation for the Rothschild World system we have been dominated by for the last 200 years.
The Rothschilds had extreme power almost as soon as they were established as a dynasty. The founder of the dynasty made his money by financing William of Hanau, the Elector of Hesse, who made much of his fortune by loaning mercenaries, most famously to Britain to put down the American Revolution, and who was described by Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton as “Europe’s most blue and cold blooded loan shark” (http://tinyurl.com/7j67t44).
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Rothschilds tells us that with the rise of Napoleon, William of Hanau was forced to flee to Denmark, and tells us how he entrusted the Rothschilds with a great sum of money, which they subsequently embezzled. It states: “After the battle of Jena in 1806 the Land-grave of Hesse-Cassel fled to Denmark, where he had already deposited much of his wealth through the agency of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, leaving in the hands of the latter specie and works of art of the value of £600,000. According to legend, these were hidden away in wine-casks, and, escaping the search of Napoleon’s soldiers when they entered Frankfort, were restored intact in the same casks in 1814, when the elector returned to his electorate (see Marbot, “Memoirs,” 1891, i. 310-311). The facts are somewhat less romantic, and more businesslike. Roths-child, so far from being in danger, was on such good terms with Napoleon’s nominee, Prince Dalberg, that he had been made in 1810 a member of the Electoral College of Darmstadt. The elector’s money had been sent to Nathan in London, who in 1808 utilized it to purchase £800,000 worth of gold from the East India Company, knowing that it would be needed for Wellington’s Peninsular campaign. He made no less than four profits on this: (1) on the sale of Wellington’s paper, (2) on the sale of the gold to Wellington, (3) on its repurchase, and (4) on forwarding it to Portugal. This was the beginning of the great fortunes of the house, and its early transactions may be divided into three stages, in each of which Nathan was the guiding spirit: namely, (1) from 1808 to 1815, mainly the transmission of bullion from England to the Continent for the use of the British armies and for subventions to the allies; (2) from 1816 to 1818, “bearing” operations on the stock exchange on the loans needed for the reconstruction of Europe after Napoleon’s downfall; and (3) from 1818 to 1848, the undertaking of loans and of refunding operations, which were henceforth to be the chief enterprises of the house.”: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12909-rothschild#anchor2
In discussing the Denmark incident, Morton noted that “someone once said the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.”: http://tinyurl.com/6npv4jx
The Rothschilds had established a network all over Europe, with Nathan Rothschild financing the British and James Rothschild financing the French. (See “The Rothschilds” by Morton, p. 43: http://tinyurl.com/77krjuu). So the same family was financing both sides of this war!
The Rothschild apologist Niall Ferguson denied that the Rothschilds scored another financial coup d’etat when, with advance intelligence, they started dumping securities as the battle of Waterloo was ending, creating the expectation that they knew Napoleon had won, when, in reality, they knew that Napoleon had lost, and they thus monopolized Britain’s market in consols, which formed the basis of British debt. In reality, Historian Ignatius Balla had established that this had indeed occurred in a book that was almost suppressed (http://tinyurl.com/6r39g2d), but was proven accurate in a court case (http://tinyurl.com/7asrrva). It was also discussed by Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton on p. 49 of his biography of the family (http://tinyurl.com/6p3r3ft). The financier Henry Clews noted in “The Wall Street Point of View”, Vol. III, p. 253, “The Consolidated Act in 1757 … by which the debts of the nation, including annuities, were consolidated or brought together into one scheme, and average rate of interest being struck at three per cent. [T]hese “consols”, … are kept in account in the Bank of England and virtually form the great bulwark of its deposits.” (http://tinyurl.com/789gdk3) As monopolizers of British Bank of England consols, the Rothschilds won control of the Bank of England, henceforth they ruled England, and collected interest on the debts they were owed, which of course exceeded the amount of money in the society in the first place, since money was/is created as a debt to the nation via book entry!
Morton noted that “We cannot guess the number of hopes and savings wiped out by this engineered panic. We cannot estimate how many liveried servants, how many Watteaus and Rembrandts, how many thoroughbreds in his descendants’ stables, the man by the pillar won that single day.” (http://tinyurl.com/7cnt8aj)
Now, the Rothschilds have a vast empire of unaccounted for wealth gained through exploitation. The Queen has immense power also – enough that her private wealth remains unaudited (http://tinyurl.com/7qbf5ft). She is perhaps the most powerful landowner on the planet. Yet she is still subservient to City of London (Rothschild) interests. The City of London, or “Crown”, is very much like the Vatican in Rome – it has it’s own powers which extend beyond that of Britain. Insight into the power of this place, and the financial imperialism that surrounded it, is provided in E.C. Knuth’s masterwork “Empire of “The City”" (http://tinyurl.com/7w3z3dw). Insight into the relationship between the Queen and the City is provided in the text “London” by Aubrey Menen. The person who manages the City on behalf of the bankers is referred to as the Lord Mayor. Menen notes that whenever the Queen wants to visit the City, she must bow and ask his permission, and that (p. 16) “the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.” (http://tinyurl.com/89w7pqy)
Andrew Carnegie, the famous industrialist who was connected to these circles, also discussed how much more powerful City of London financiers were than the monarchy in his text “Triumphant Democracy” (p. 380) – “My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in ‘the king’s Name,’ who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own needs.” (http://tinyurl.com/793ysws)
Vincent Cartwright Vickers, who was a Deputy Lieutenant of the City of London, director of Vickers, Ltd., and director of the London Assurance, noted the power of those he served – “… financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power, of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendships or mistrusts … Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness, upon which the City thrives and grows rich … This national and mainly international dictatorship of money, which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the Press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly ; for there is so much which ‘it would not be in the public interest to divulge’…” (cited in Knuth, “Empire of “The City”", p. 65)
From the base of the City of London, the Rothschilds wielded extreme power. To give just one example of this - they set the price of gold every day. William James, In "Twilight Over England", published on behalf of the Imperial War college of London, noted that (p. 78) "The story of the gold-fixing has often been told. How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold. There is, however, a great deal of activity which lies behind his final act -- this centralization of the demand for, and the supply of gold in one office and the fixing of the price of gold on that basis. A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.": http://tinyurl.com/b5q9uca
The Rothschilds also financially assaulted France. They were not considered by the French nobility to be worthy of the megalomaniacal pre-eminence they had established elsewhere, so to punish the French aristocracy, the Rothschilds bought French government bonds from the Ouvrard and Baring brothers bankers, and dumped them in huge quantities in the European market, creating a panic (http://tinyurl.com/6vyn9pd)! They then achieved pre-eminence in French society that was to their linking.
Incidentally, in both England and France, a Rothschild was the only merchant banker allowed to be a director of the Central Bank: http://tinyurl.com/8yfp5e8.
The Niles’ National Register published in 1828 stated:
“… the house of Rothschild certainly stands pre-eminent at the recent death of one, who was thought the richest banker in Europe”: http://tinyurl.com/bogfwnf
The Niles’ National Register published on Sept 19, 1835, stated:
“The ROTHSCHILDS are the wonders of modern banking … we see the descendants of Judah, after a persecution of two thousand years, peering above kings, rising higher than emperors, and holding a whole continent in the hollow of their hands. The Rothschild govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburgh to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington. Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people. He holds the keys of peace or war, blessing or cursing.”: http://tinyurl.com/75qp423
Hugh S. Legaré, a Congressman from South Carolina, stated on Friday October 13, 1837 in Congress:
“What does the house of Rothschild owe to the Governments of Europe—that house to which all the Governments on the continent are obliged to have recourse in their financial exigencies?”: http://tinyurl.com/7u6h6se
The Bankers Magazine printed in 1847 stated:
“The five brothers (Anselm, Solomon, Nathan, Charles & James) have taken part in most of the great financial affairs of Austria, of France, of England, and of almost every country. They have formed among themselves an invincible phalanx. By themselves, or by their agents, they have excercised a great control over the principal places in Europe, and, faithful to their habit, never to undertake anything separately and to concert all their operations, they have followed one unvaried and identical system. Their power was such, that at one time they were free to make either peace or war.” (http://tinyurl.com/799qupu)
Robert Merry’s Museum, Volume 15-16, printed in 1851 stated:
“The Richest Family in the World: The following account of the Rothschild’s will be found interesting, as showing what may be done by industry and talent.” (http://tinyurl.com/83kes3x)
The Ladies’ Repository published in 1863 stated:
“Baron Lionel Rothschild, the first Jew ever admitted into the English Parliament, and the wealthiest man, it is believed, now residing on our planet.” (http://tinyurl.com/88qpla6)
The Cyclopaedia of Commercial & Business Anecdotes printed in 1865 stated:
“The Rothschilds, Wealthiest Bankers in the World.
The House of Rothschild is the impersonation of that money power which governs the world.” (http://tinyurl.com/8yorzl5)
Former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson” (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373): http://tinyurl.com/3tlu4fk
Printed in 1905, Jewish Literature & Other Essays stated:
“The palaces of the Rothschilds, the richest family in the world, harbor many a warm heart, whose pulsations are quickened by the thought of Israel’s history and poetic heritage. Wealth has not abated a jot of their enthusiasm and loyal love for the faith.” (http://tinyurl.com/6ux9fyf)
The aforementioned Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Rothschilds noted (http://tinyurl.com/6nqbgj7):
“It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Roths-childs that at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.”
The British economist J.A. Hobson’s seminal book “Imperialism” published in 1902, in a section entitled “Economic Parasites of Imperialism”, states (http://tinyurl.com/c5vp95h):
“Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?”
The Missionary Review of the World printed in 1906 stated that the Rothschilds were estimated to control $30,000,000,000 by that time: http://tinyurl.com/3cel5uy
Adjusted for inflation, this number becomes $726,274,509,804 (in today's dollars: http://tinyurl.com/y9ddhkz)
This does not include other profits accrued since then. Or money accrued from interest bearing accounts. With compounding interest, one can only guess at how much money the have. They have never been audited. A reasonable assumption would be a lot more than a trillion dollars.
Prof. Werner Sombart noted, in "The Jews and Modern Capitalism", p. 99: "'There is only one power in Europe,' was a dictum well-known about the middle of the 19th century, 'and that is Rothschild.'": http://tinyurl.com/83jdehk
Kent Cooper served as general manager of the Associated Press from 1925 to 1943, and then became it's executive director. In "Barriers Down", pp. 6-9, he noted that by the beginning of the 20th century, the news agencies Reuters, Wolff, and Havas were a triumvirate that together monopolized international news. On p. 21, he noted that in his circles, the account was that international bankers, led by the Rothschilds, assumed ownership of those agencies at the beginning of the 20th Century. Relevant excerpts are here: http://tinyurl.com/bar74vh
Thus we know why they were subsequently seldom mentioned in the world's media, since they owned the media.
The 1919 Encyclopedia Americana noted that “The political events of 1813 raised the House of Rothschild to the important position it has SINCE occupied in the commercial and financial world”: http://tinyurl.com/3btpf6t
It stated further that “much intermarriage among cousins indicates the family is destined long to retain control of European finance”: http://tinyurl.com/3u3qamo
Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton noted that, “[T]hough they control scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, not one bears the name Rothschild. Being privately held partnerships, the family houses never need to, and never do, publish a single public balance sheet or any other report of their financial condition.”: http://tinyurl.com/754prnh
Baron Philippe de Rothschild described his family as "the richest and most powerful family in the world."(De Rothschild, Philippe, Littlewood, Joan. The Very Candid Autobiography of Baron Phillippe De Rothschild. NY; Ballantine Books. 1984. p.283): http://tinyurl.com/7zsro9t
Recently the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds consolidated forces (though the Rockefellers have been vassals of the Rothschild empire from their inception - see "The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism", by Eustace Mullins, ch. 4, "The Business of America"): http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/rockefeller-and-rothschild-banking-dynasties-join-forces/?smid=fb-share
And Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor in chief of the Washington times, admitted that the House of Rothschild is the subsidizer of the cultural engineer and financial terrorist George Soros, who launches "color revolutions" against countries that resist the international system [the Washington Times removed the story from their site. The story did originally state, however: "The Gnomes of Zurich were derogatory caricatures of secretive, greedy, stiff Swiss-German bankers, pince-nez aquiver, who ruled over the land of secret numbered accounts for tax dodgers the world over. With the world’s best financial intelligence service, they knew their stuff and seldom spoke, even in retirement.
Their Geneva counterparts in French-speaking Switzerland were more sophisticated, relaxed in the company of global wheeler-dealers, and weren’t afraid to speak their minds, albeit off the record. Such was George C. Karlweis, the brain behind Banque Privee, owned by the late Baron Edmond de Rothschild. His biggest claim to fame: George Soros and the launch of his Quantum Fund in 1969."]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/geneva-gnomes-global-dread/?page=all
To illustrate the power of the Rothschilds in the current World Market, note the text of the following Financial Times article discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild’s stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings:
“..[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the world.” (“French Rothschild is set to take helm in London”, Charles Pretzlik, Banking Editor, The Financial Times, London, February 10, 2003)
Quite different from the experience of most of us with our assets, isn’t it?
In May 2011, a Swiss banker, who would not be named for fear of the consequences, was interviewed by the Russian magazine NoviDen. He revealed the mentality of these people, what they like to do in their spare time: http://web.archive.org/web/20110723115139/http://noviden.info/article_239.html
"[T]hese people are corrupt, sick in their minds, so sick they are full of vices and those vices are kept under wraps on their orders. Some of them like Strauss-Kahn rape women, others are sado maso, or paedophile and many are into Satanism. When you go in some banks you see these satanistic symbols, like in the Rothschild Bank in Zurich. These people are controlled by black-mail because of the weaknesses they have. They have to follow orders or they will be exposed, they will be destroyed or even killed."
He also noted, regarding the powerful policy steering group known as the Bilderberg group: "You have the inner circle who are into Satanism and then there are the naive or less informed people. Some people even think they are doing something good, the outer circle."
It is interesting that you can see Satanic symbols permeating the clothing of the members of the Rothschild family (as with the necklace of Baroness Philippine Mathilde Camille de Rothschild): http://tinyurl.com/75p28xf
A Pravda interview with Tatyana Koryagina, who worked with the Russian Ministry of Economic development, and who knew of economic disasters that were set to plague the U.S. in 2001, went as follows: http://tinyurl.com/78d3qor
“Koryagina: There are international “super-state” and “super-government” groups. In accordance with tradition, the mystical and religious components play extremely important roles in human history. One must take into account the shadow economy, shadow politics and the religious component, while predicting the development of the present financial situation.
Pravda: Still, I don’t understand what could be done to this giant country [the U.S.], whose budget is calculated in the trillions of dollars.
Koryagina: It is possible to do anything to the U.S… whose total debt has reached $26 trillion. Generally, the Western economy is at the boiling point now. Shadow financial activities of $300 trillion are hanging over the planet. At any moment, they could fall on any stock exchange and cause panic and crash. The recent crisis in Southeast Asia, which touched Russia, was a rehearsal.”
On their website, the Rothschilds note that they are de facto, an agency separate from governments, that acts in an "advisory" capacity, writing, "We are widely regarded as the adviser who best understands the needs of governments and the benefits of a discreet, long-term relationship.": http://www.rothschild.com/gfa/our_clients/governments/
But as we can see from the above citations, their influence is much deeper and more pernicious than those seemingly innocuous words imply.
(Special credit is due to an internet correspondent who goes by the pseudonym "The Black Rabbit of Inle", who is a brilliant researcher. Some of the above citations came from him, and I combined that with my own research. He operates the following website: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/?zx=513741195d237d21)
One individual who did excellent research on the Rothschild system was Eustace Mullins, a disciple of Ezra Pound who wrote the only authorized biography of that poet, entitled “This Difficult Individual”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87503950/This-Difficult-Individual-Ezra-Pound
Mullins did some things in his personal life that I in no way condone. Yet he wrote four books – “Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection”, “The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism”, “Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America”, and “The Rape of Justice: America’s Tribunals Exposed”, that I have independently verified to a large extent, and have some very interesting information that is difficult to find elsewhere. The texts are available here: http://archive.org/details/EustaceMullins
In "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", which developed out of a study of the Federal Reserve that Pound had commissioned him to write (while stuck in St. Elizabeth’s), Mullins showed how Rothschild agents affiliated with the House of Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. conspired to gain financial control over the economy of the United States of America. The United States had been under financial assault for a very long time (http://tinyurl.com/72a3rp2), and often felt the brutality of the Rothchild empire (http://tinyurl.com/7th7jp4), but this constituted a real coup d’etat.
There is this misconception that the Federal Reserve came about as a “remedy” to the problems inherent in the panic of 1907. But the Panic of 1907 was created by the same people who wanted the Central bank in the first place. Historian Frederick Lewis Allen tells in Life magazine of April 25, 1949, of Morgan’s role in spreading rumors about the insolvency of the Knickerbocker Bank and The Trust Company of America, which rumors triggered the 1907 panic. In answer to the question: “Did Morgan precipitate the panic?” Allen reported:
“Oakleigh Thorne, the president of that particular trust company, testified later before a congressional committee that his bank had been subjected to only moderate withdrawals … that he had not applied for help, and that it was the Morgan’s “sore point” statement alone that had caused the run on his bank. From this testimony, plus the disciplinary measures taken by the Clearing House against the Heinze, Morse and Thomas banks, plus other fragments of supposedly pertinent evidence, certain chroniclers have arrived at the ingenious conclusion that the Morgan interests took advantage of the unsettled conditions during the autumn of 1907 to precipitate the panic, guiding it shrewdly as it progressed so that it would kill off rival banks and consolidate the preeminence of the banks within the Morgan orbit.”: http://tinyurl.com/3qhx6l4
Then Morgan interests, combined with Warburg, SECRETLY met to make their cartel. The Jekyll Island meeting was not disclosed until the appearance of a 1916 article by B.C. Forbes, where he said: “Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written. … The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York’s ubiquitous reporters had been foiled . . . Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry. … Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.”(“CURRENT OPINION”, December, 1916, p. 382): http://tinyurl.com/3ke5xd3
Some people think, in spite of all this, that these people were merely “benevolent planners”. An actual look at the system they designed dispels that notion.
Insight into the system they designed comes from the interrogation of Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles in the HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 2233: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/historicaldocs/678/download/68568/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf
"Mr. PATMAN. NOW, in order to get our definitions straight a little further, our economy is based upon debt; our bank system and our money are based on debt; that is right, is it not? Mr. ECCLES. Money is created by bank credit. Mr. PATMAN. Yes. Mr. ECCLES. That is right. And the bank reserves are created by the central bank. Mr. PATMAN. With some exceptions, if all the people were to pay their debts to the banks and the United States Government should pay its debts, there would not be any money to do business with, would there, except just a little, like Civil War money, and coins, and things like that, probably about four or five billion dollars; is that not right? Mr. ECCLES. That is right. That is what happened after 1929. With debt contraction- we have never had a period of prosperity when there has not been an expansion of debt on balance, by either the Government or by the private individuals or corporations, or by both. Whenever debt has contracted on balance, you have had a depression. From 1929 to 1933 I think there was a total debt con traction, as I recall, of something like $30,000,000,000. This was bank debt and also private debt. Mr. PATMAN. Well, is the reason not obvious, that since our money is based upon debt, and our bank system also, and money is created through the bank system by debt, that we can only be prosperous if we go into debt, and if we pay our debts, why, we are in a depression; is that not right? Mr. ECCLES. YOU have got to distinguish between bank debt and debt outside of the bank. The expansion of debt to the banks creates deposits and deposits, of course, are always available to be withdrawn as currency. In other words, the growth of debts to banks, whether in the form of public debt, such as the ownership of Government bonds, municipal debt, or private debt, creates deposits. That is where the great growth of bank deposits has come from, largely through the growth of debt, and largely Government debt. And that, of course, is responsible for our very large, what we term, money supply."
See also the following exchange given in the Hearings on the Retirement of Federal Reserve bank stock, Volumes 1-2, p. 41: http://tinyurl.com/3grzccz , http://tinyurl.com/3smsc2b
PATMAN: “Now Mr. Allen, when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee buys a million dollar bond you create the money on the credit of the Nation to pay for that bond, don’t you? ALLEN: That is correct. PATMAN: And the credit of the Nation is represented by Federal Reserve Notes in that case, isn’t it? If the banks want the actual money, you give Federal Reserve notes in payment, don’t you? ALLEN: That could be done, but nobody wants the Federal Reserve notes. PATMAN: Nobody wants them, because the banks would rather have the credit as reserves.”
To create this debt money, the FOMC works with banks called “primary dealers” that are, at present, international (http://tinyurl.com/6q26mxe).
So we’re dealing with a cartel. And given that money is created via loans, but since loans have interest rates attached to them, there is always more money owed than is in circulation. Hence all real wealth inevitably gravitates to the financiers making use of this “technique”, and this occurs in any country with the modern central banking system.
Some of the most eminent economists in the United States have condemned this debt slavery system, and outlined it's origins. Irving Fisher was hailed by Milton Friedman as “the greatest economist the United States has ever produced.”: http://tinyurl.com/7bv9nds
Robert Hemphill was the first credit manager of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, who wished to end fractional reserve lending, believing instead that banks should keep 100% reserves, and collaborated with Fisher on this: http://tinyurl.com/82axvkj
He drafted a bill that Fisher supported called S.3744:: http://tinyurl.com/8a84x7l
He noted, in the forward to Fisher’s text 100% Money, the following:
“If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation.
This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system.
When one gets a complete grasp upon this picture, the tragic absurdity of our helpless position is almost incredible, but there it is.”: http://tinyurl.com/89sh76f
Commenting on all this, Hemphill stated, before the House of Representatives:
“… there has been for 200 years, since one certain man came into power as a financial genius, Mayer Anselm Rothschild, who was born in 1790 [sic] since he came into power there has been a constant, organized, shrewd conspiracy to convince the people of the world that this is not true, to convince men against their own judgment, against a thing which is self-evident.
And that conspiracy has involved the press, it has involved the pulpit, it has involved a conspiracy to mislead people about the importance of a very simple thing – money.
The interests who promote this confusion profit by retaining for themselves the monopoly of manufacturing our money.”: http://tinyurl.com/8x2oqvv
The effects of this parasitism are now being felt. F. William Engdahl, in a superb analysis, noted who the recent financial crisis was hardly “accidental recklessness”, but was in fact very much an act of imperialism by the predators who subsequently benefited from it: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7413, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7813, http://engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/The_Financial_Tsunami_Part_III/the_financial_tsunami_part_iii.HTM, http://engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Asset_Securitization/asset_securitization_the_last_.HTM, http://engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/The_Financial_Tsunami_Part_V/the_financial_tsunami_part_v.HTM
Incidentally, as all this began to unfold, Evelyn de Rothschild went on the BBC urging for Global financial regulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4kZd4Roies
The banks that orchestrated this financial attack were subsequently rewarded with a 23.7 trillion dollar line of credit: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM
Ben Bernanke, when distributing the bailout, refused to disclose who the recipients of those funds were, but noted that they included banks outside of this country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX2qvbznGKM
Sen. Bernie Sanders pressed through with investigations, and discovered that the taxpayer funded bail out was not 700 billion dollars, it was trillions and trillions of dollars, about 12.3 trillion dollars in fact, and much of this went to foreign banks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/a-real-jaw-dropper-at-the_b_791091.html
Now, 50% of Americans are poor: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income
A recent, INCOMPLETE, audit of the Federal Reserve, shoed that it had been secretly providing overseas banks with an additional $16 trillion is bailouts: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
And, as agents of the Federal Reserve have recently reported, the Federal Reserve is “missing” $9,000,000,000,000(!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36EX11kD2E4&sns=fb
All over the world, riots are brewing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysNcy8pEnjw). And yet, the whole thing was predicted (really planned) in the UK Department of Defence in the document “The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme: 2007-2036″. The document is permeated with propaganda reflecting the standard narrative on social events, but within that context still accurately conveyed the fact that riots would be occurring within a few years of it’s publication. The UK Guardian provided a succinct overview of it’s contents: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news
The update to that document is even more disturbing: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=361
The previous great depression was also the product of predation and parasitism. In the 1920s the Federal Reserve, under the leadership of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, massively expanded the US money supply in order to devalue the dollar and buttress British financial power - since the Pound became comparatively more valuable via this maneuver. At times, it would contract the money supply, but its commitment to buttress British financial power superseded any kind of rational policy for the country it operated in. Here was the beginning of a bubble, and Montagu Norman, the head of the Bank of England, who, as Carroll Quigley noted, was referred to as the "currency dictator of Europe" (http://tinyurl.com/8vmlay8), met with the officers of the Federal Reserve in 1929 and decided to just let the bubble burst. (Mullins, Eustace. "Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection", ch. 11, "Lord Montagu Norman").
Many in the international financial community were aware of this trend and quietly urged their confederates to exit the market. Paul Warburg, in his annual report to the stockholders of his International Acceptance Bank, in March, 1929, said: "If the orgies of unrestrained speculation are permitted to spread, the ultimate collapse is certain not only to affect the speculators themselves, but to bring about a general depression involving the entire country." (This unrestrained speculation had been going on for years, but it was only at this time that Warburg thought it necessary to issue this warning).
Then margin loans, which had fueled this speculation, were recalled, and the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply. (Mullins, Eustace. Op. Cit., ch. 12, "The Great Depression"). Curtis Dall, FDR's son in law, wrote about all of this: "Several months passed, then came the fateful week starting on the 24th day of October, 1929! It was not as financial writers often comment "a sharp technical reaction, resulting from an over-bought position." It was the long-in-coming, housecleaning. Actually, it was the calculated "shearing" of the public by the World-Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of the supply of call money in the New York money market.” (Curtis B. Dall, "FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law", pp. 33-34)
And now we are seeing the dreams of the central banker Montague Norman being realized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKchHKMb2k
Norman's dream, as quoted by biographer John Halgrave, was "that the Hegemony of World Finance should reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole super-national control mechanism.": http://tinyurl.com/c2r2pvu
All of this becomes particularly interesting when you consider the tax situation as revealed by the Grace Commission (http://tinyurl.com/yudlx6, http://tinyurl.com/7vabjn7).
the report itself: http://tinyurl.com/42gdbm2
p. 12 (of the document, not the pdf):
“Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
*One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey. *Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken. *With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.”
Of course, it is important to keep in mind what the fundamental source of this debt is, and how it keeps on expanding, beyond the actual amount of money in circulation, due to the interest attached to it.
It's a system only a mobster could conceive of. It is a perfect warfare strategy for monopoly capitalists to prevent the emergence of competitors from the middle class who might usurp power. The mobster who formulated it in it’s modern form, Karl Marx, ingeniously presented it and a host of other policies as a means of “liberation”. In other words, his policies prevented the “bugeoise” (middle class: http://tinyurl.com/6watw7o), from engaging in that "detestable" practice known as “capital accumulation”. So, it is not surprising that Mikhail Bakunin, Marx’s chief rival, accused Marx of working for the Rothschild dynasty (http://tinyurl.com/7bc4k7f). This was also established in an essential document called “Red Symphony”, which presents itself as minutes of the NKVD interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, and which I have independently verified to such an extent that I vouch for it’s authenticity (http://tinyurl.com/2b78j74). Marx made some "anti-Semitic" admissions in the same manner as Benjamin Disraeli, and this is harped upon by those who wish to distance Communism from Judaism. All good conspirators make maneuvers to hide their tracks. Those statements in no way refute the origins and legacy of Bolshevism. It is important to note that not only was Marx a Rothschild agent, he was also closely related to the Rothschilds: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/karl-marxs-family-tree.html
The Rothschild's leadership of the Communist project continued onto the ascendancy of the Bolsheviks. Joseph Nedava, in a biography of Trotsky published by the Jewish Publication Society, noted that “A Jewish journalist who knew Trotsky from the period of his stay in Vienna (“when he used to play chess with Baron Rothschild in Cafe Central and frequent Cafe Arkaden daily to read the press there”) is even firmer on the Yiddish issue: “He [Trotsky] knew Yiddish, and if at a later date, in his autobiography, he pretends to know nothing about Jews and Judaism, then this is nothing but a plain lie. He who had visited at Cafe Arkaden for years on end must have mastered both these matters to perfection. The language in greatest use at that Cafe was – besides ‘Viennese-German’ – Yiddish.”"(Trotsky and the Jews, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia 5732, 1972, p. 36): http://tinyurl.com/3d3p6dk
So much for Trotsky’s “anti-capitalism” then.
The Rothschilds also subsidized Stalin. Simon Sebag Montefiore noted in “Young Stalin” (2008), p. 186 that Stalin, prior to the revolution, was “on the Rothschild payroll”: http://tinyurl.com/3sret6c, and on p. 90, that “Stalin started laughing, almost singing: “I’m working for the Rothschilds”": http://tinyurl.com/3hfveof
The Rothschilds, who, as Ferguson noted in his apologetic tome had a “quasi-royal status in the eyes of other Jews” (http://tinyurl.com/7gqsuwy) were the force behind Zionism, and envisioned Israel being the crown jewel of a World Government they would control. This is fully established in Ch. 3 of Christopher jon Bjerkness’ masterwork, “The Jewish Genocide of the Armenian Christians”, and so I will not replicate what he put forth there (http://tinyurl.com/972s3rd). Leading Zionists had no qualms about noting the dominance of the Rothschilds in their project. Theodore Herzl, credited by many as being the founder of the Zionist movement (though he was not), originally entitled his book “The Jewish State”, “An Address to the Rothschilds” (http://tinyurl.com/6vc9x2g). In fact, the Balfour Declaration, which led to the establishment of the state of Israel, was addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Balfour%20Declaration
Israel was hardly intended as a “home” for the Jewish people, as even a cursory examination of the writings of Zionist leaders reveals a fierce super-imperialism. Genesis 5:18 states “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” Theodore Herzl put that ambition write into his program, writing that the ideal Zionist state stretched “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” (Herzl, Theodor, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 2, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 711). Of course, that kind of extremism is merely a taste of a deeply perverse movement. I have worked toward authenticating the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and delved into this more in depth, here - and authenticated it not as a condemnation of Jews per se, but as a critique of racial supremacism as applied to politics: http://archive.org/details/WatersFlowingEastward_307
An understanding of this Communist-Zionist-Supercapitalist nexus provides a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history, without which it makes little sense.
Of great significance on the World stage today is an “Anglo-American Financial Coterie” centered around Cecil Rhodes and the City of London. These people were motivated by the ideal put forth by Cecil Rhodes in his 1877 Confession of Faith (http://tinyurl.com/88ktgcf) “To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”
“Peace” of course, means pacification and domination of opposing forces. In the following New York times article, members of this Rhodes-Rothschild Round Table group were a bit more explicit about their intentions, stating that they established their society for the purpose of “gradually absorbing the wealth of the world” (http://tinyurl.com/7fqfu5a).
Back then, as is the case today, the Rothschild family exercised a dominant influence in these affairs. The historian Niall Ferguson, despite his apologetics for the Rothschilds in his biography of the family, nevertheless noted, in other works, the fact that Nathaniel Rothschild (the individual whom David Loyd George called the “dictator” of England (http://tinyurl.com/3rvb4es)), dominated Rhodes’ imperial and mining operations. Ferguson wrote that (http://tinyurl.com/7uvxpb4), “Rhodes could not have won his near monopoly over the South African diamond production without the assistance of his friends in the City of London: in particular, the Rothschild bank, at that time the biggest concentration of capital in the world.” (Niall Ferguson, “Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power”, New york, Basic Books, 2004, p. 186) Ferguson elaborated (http://tinyurl.com/7cdk2xm), “It is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899, the Rothschilds’ stake was twice that of Rhodes. In 1888 Rhodes wrote to Lord Rothschild: 'I know with you behind me I can do all I have said. If however you think differently I have nothing to say.'" (Ibid., p. 187)
One of the first projects of this group was the Boer war. This war, like the Iraq war today, was not popular among the British people. It was undertaken solely for the gratification of Rhodes and his imperialist friends and the Rothschilds and their friends in the City of London, so that they might further capture the vast Gold and Diamond wealth of South Africa. It was the first truly destructive, brutal war that the Europeans had waged in a while, violating rules of conduct that had been established in this area. In this war, the British set up concentration camps for the Boers, pioneering the practice. The Rothschild/Rhodes agent who initiated the war was Lord Alfred Milner, and he would become very influential in the Round Table groups (Quigley, Carroll. “The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden”. 1981, New York: Books in Focus. ch. 4, "Milner's Kindergarten, 1897-1910"; Mullins, Eustace. "The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism", ch. 1, "The Rothschilds"). In “British Supremacy In South Africa”, ch. 1, "Sir Alfred Milner’s War", Godfrey Hugh Lancelot Le May noted, "Milner had come to believe that war with the Transvaal was both inevitable and desirable … Milner had at last convinced Chamberlain that British supremacy in South Africa would be jeopardized unless the power of the Transvaal was broken." (http://tinyurl.com/7kwf3zd)
J.A. Hobson noted the reality of the situation leading to that terrible loss of life in his book “The War in South Africa”:
“We are fighting in order to place a small international oligarchy of mine-owners and speculators in power at Pretoria. Englishmen will surely do well to recognise that the economic and political destinies of South Africa are, and seem likely to remain, in the hands of men most of whom are foreigners by origin whose trade is finance and whose trade interests are not British.” (http://tinyurl.com/7vkd3hh)
Milner, who was a major player in the Rhodes project, was also a key facilitator of the Zionist ambition. Vladimir Halpérin, in “Lord Milner and Empire”, noted, “He played an important part in the drafting of the famous Balfour Declaration in December of 1917. It is a fact, that, with [Arthur Balfour], he was its co-author. As far back, as 1915, Milner had realized the need for a Jewish National Home, and had never ceased to be warmly in favor of its creation. Milner, like Lloyd George, Amery, and many others, saw that the Jewish National Home could also contribute to the security of the Empire in the Near East.” (http://tinyurl.com/7k5xgza)
Remember, as this especially shows, they were not dedicated to the welfare of the British people, because the leaders of the Zionist movement placed Britain in an extremely risky situation in trying to secure Palestine. Zionists in America were engineering for the U.S. to enter the war, but meanwhile, Zionists in Britain got the government that Milner was influential in to divert around a million men to the middle East, as World War I was raging on. Douglas Reed discusses this in a chapter of “The Controversy of Zion” entitled “The Decisive Battle” (http://tinyurl.com/8xmm4aa).
Milner also helped to subsidize the Communist ambition. R.H. Bruce Lockhart, a Milner agent, wrote of how his circles were able to get even Lenin to carry out their will. As follows (http://tinyurl.com/83qjcrd):
“Another new acquaintence of these first days in Bolshevised St. Petersburg was Raymond Robins [an agent of Morgan interests], the head of the American Red Cross Mission… Robins was the only man whom Lenin was always willing to see and who ever succeeded in imposing his own personality on the unemotional Bolshevik leader. … He had been in conflict with Saalkind, a nephew of Trotsky and then Assistant Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Saalkind had been rude, and the American, who had a promise from Lenin that, whatever happened, a train would always be ready for him at an hour’s notice, was determined to exact an apology or to leave the country. When I arrived he had just finished telephoning to Lenin. He had delivered his ultimatum, and Lenin had promised to reply within ten minutes. I waited, while Robins fumed. Then the telephone rang and Robins picked up the receiver. Lenin had capitulated. Saalkind was dismissed from his post…”
This interesting because Lockhart was also involved in the "Ambassadors' Plot", a very famous counter-revolutionary action (I normally don't recommend wikipedia for anything controversial, but this article is non-controversial and well sourced): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Reilly#Ambassadors.27_plot
So again the same circles were subsidizing both sides!
In "Czarism and Revolution", the White Russian general and expatriate Arsène de Goulévitch, founder of the Union of Oppressed Peoples in France, noted: http://tinyurl.com/7n8oowb
"On April 7, 1917, General Janin made the following entry in his diary ('Au G.C.C. Russe"-At Russian G.H.Q., Le Monde Slave, Vol. 2, 1927, pp.296-297): Long interview with R., who confirmed what I had previously been told by M. After referring to the German hatred of himself and his family, he turned to the subject of the Revolution which, he claimed, was engineered by the English and, more precisely, by Sir George Buchanan and Lord [Alfred] Milner. Petrograd at the time was teeming with English... He could, he asserted, name the streets and the numbers of the houses in which British agents were quartered. They were reported, during the rising, to have distributed money to the and incited them to mutiny."
This also shows that they were not interested in the welfare of the British people, since the Bolsheviks were not discriminating in the terror the inflicted, and would have easily butchered the common Englishman. Also, the so called "Zinoviev Letter" has been dismissed as a forgery, but there is evidence that the program contained in it certainly was in effect: http://mailstar.net/zinoviev.html
This “Round Table” group formed the key players mentioned by the German Kaiser in his memoirs, who wanted to crush Germany, and who allied with the Zionists to make it happen. This core group can be accurately represented as a loose group of power brokers centered around the Pilgrims Society (http://silverstealers.net/tss.html). The scope of their internationalist and imperial ambitions was captured in the Col. House Report (http://tinyurl.com/8od9b7), and in an interesting Congressional expose (http://tinyurl.com/7gfklaj).
This organization later branched out into organizations like the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations. (See Quigley, Carroll. “Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time”. New York: Macmillan, 1966. pp. 936-956). Arnold Toynbee was very important in Royal Institute of International Affairs circles, being the RIIA director of studies. Given that position, he certainly would be qualified to state the intentions and objectives of that group, and it’s sister organizations. As recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, Toynbee said that (http://tinyurl.com/3zt7crq) “We are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be, perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited.” (International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809)
Relevant texts covering this subtle progression towards World Government, focusing on some things not already addressed, are “The Turning of the Tides” (http://tinyurl.com/29kster) by Paul Shafer and John Howland Snow, and “The United Nations Exposed” (http://tinyurl.com/6p74bwn) by William Jasper.
One of the most recent projects of this group comes from the UNCED 4th World Wilderness Conference, where people like you and I are called “the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth”. This is significant enough that deserves an essay all on its own: http://archive.org/details/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125
Subject: the Kaiser's memoirs
*I referenced these. The relevant citation is as follows:
“the Anglo-Saxon world as far back as 1897 had combined against us, and therein is explained a number of obstacles encountered by Germany in her foreign policy. It also explains America’s attitude in the war. … In view of the grouping of England, France and Russia-three very strong Powers-only one political course lay open to Germany; the threat of deciding Germany’s future by force of arms must be avoided until we had secured for ourselves such an economic, military, naval, and politically national position in the world as to make it seem advisable to our opponents to refrain from risking a decision by arms, and to yield us in the share in the apportionment and management of the world to which our ability entitled us. We neither desired nor were we entitled to jeopardize our hard-won position.”: http://tinyurl.com/7xhl6j6
|Ocr:||ABBYY FineReader 8.0|